Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The budget doesn't have anything for the rebates because the program isn't in the budget. The budget allows----

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Okay. I want it to be clear. I didn't say it would be worked out. I said that the study that you and Republicans have repeatedly cited----

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time only. I have very few minutes left.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. My friends on the other side of the aisle--and I attempted to claim the attention of my friend from Arizona when not once but twice today he talked about somehow a $600 billion tax on the American people. I was trying to get his attention to refer to the reserve funds on page 53 for him to look at to find where that number is. Where is that number in the budget proposal before us?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I only have a few seconds.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The reserve fund has no number. It is on page 53.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I will yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, health care is one of these critical areas. There is nothing in the Democratic budget that suggests we're going to turn over to some shadowy, bureaucratic influence a bureaucratic mechanism that's going to control Americans' health care. What President Obama has suggested and what we've been discussing in our Ways and Means Committee, for instance, is having an opportunity for more choices for Americans, including some that are subsidized by the Federal Government to help fill some of these gaps. It's interesting that, on one hand, they'll talk about something that isn't true--the shadowy bureaucratic control of health care--while they kind of conveniently forget that some of the best health care in America is provided by government, itself, by government bureaucrats, if you will, in the Veterans Administration. It's a little embarrassing to watch this schizophrenia that our friends are engaged in. One of the most insidious portions of both of these budgets is to be found in taking back the recovery funds that States across America are counting on for economic recovery. I suggest that's a mistake as well and another reason to reject the Republican alternative.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will yield on your time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The point is, the people ought to look at the budget, at the reserve fund.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And find that it is deficit-neutral, and that the opportunity is here for us to address the climate change. I strongly urge that people refer to it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining for both sides.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out to my good friend from Georgia that he confuses the marginal rate with the rate that corporations actually pay. Thirty-five percent is the marginal rate. If he looks at how much American corporations actually pay, because almost nobody pays the marginal rate because of the loopholes, it is down to about 5 percent. It's the second lowest of the top 20 economies. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the real State of Washington, not Oregon, and a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Larsen.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We're going to hear more of our friends from the other side of the aisle talk about their budget proposal today. It's ironic that they're proposing things that they couldn't, wouldn't enact when they ran everything. But one of the things I find most distressing is their repeated falsehood about some $3,100 increase in taxes on the American people based on research done by MIT. They talked about it four times again last night. Talking to Professor John Reilly, who actually did the 2007 study, indicates that they are using an intentional misrepresentation of the study. In fact, when somebody from the Republicans ``called me on March 20 and asked about it, I explained why the estimate was incorrect and what they could do to correct it.'' The actual number is one-fortieth of what the Republicans are talking about. And the fact is that in the budget we have an opportunity for people who want to be legislators--not communicators--to help us allocate how those benefits will be utilized.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy because this budget represents a reinvestment in our Nation's public lands, infrastructure, and energy independence. It is a visionary budget that will help renew and rebuild America while protecting the environment. The Republicans tomorrow will present not one but two budgets that would shortchange those very environmental protections. We propose rather than continue to ignore the dangers of climate change, which the Republicans have done for the last 8 years, an unprecedented coalition, we join with to urge carbon pollution no longer be free to be dumped into our environment by establishing a reserve fund for energy and climate change that leaves the opportunity for committees of jurisdiction to pass legislation to reduce greenhouse gases at least for those who are going to be legislators and not just communicators. A strong investment in the area of energy and environment is important at a time when a third of our Nation's waters don't meet water quality standards, over 150 million people live in areas that exceed EPA's air pollution standards, and 76 million people live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. Tomorrow, the Republicans will give not one but two budgets that will shortchange those initiatives. We have water systems, transportation systems, levee systems that are tested. We've seen it on television just this week, and the challenges of the 21st century demand a renewed national focus on ensuring the soundness of those programs. Tomorrow, the Republicans will propose two budgets to shortchange them. Instead, Madam Chair, I suggest strongly that we work on moving forward with this budget, with agencies like the EPA and the Department of the Interior, to get back to improving air, water quality, preserving public lands, cleaning up toxic waste, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and reverse the damage of the last 8 years, while we create millions of jobs and strengthen our communities and protect the planet.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I have listened to my friend, Mr. Ryan, whom I deeply respect, but am taken aback by his introduction. He's concerned that we're having the debate this evening. This is why we call it prime time. This is when you stage the Academy Awards, the Super Bowl, things you want America to see. But I could understand why they would want it during the day when people are working and not listening to this debate because they want, as Mr. Ryan says, to go back to the America they grew up in, the policies of the Fifties, the energy policies of the Sixties, the fraying infrastructure of years ago. This is a budget that points to today's problems with solutions for the future, a carbon-constrained economy where carbon pollution will no longer be free, and we can actually create the jobs they're talking about. Remember the last time you heard them in high dudgeon; it's when the Democrats controlled everything and we passed that awful Clinton budget that produced, not the doom they called for, but sustained prosperity.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the budget is the most important challenge that every Congress faces year in and year out. It reflects our priorities, it shows how we deal with war and peace, the economy, education, and the environment, who pays, and who benefits. Under the Constitution, this is a uniquely congressional responsibility. The power of the purse is reserved to the United States Congress. I have been disturbed lately to find one political party being AWOL. In fact, Republican Leader Boehner famously announced earlier this month that he wanted the people that he leads in the Republican Conference not to be legislators but just communicators, not be involved in the give and take of the legislative process. And as if to drive the point home, the Republicans last week released a budget proposal that the Associated Press summarized as, and I quote, ``a glossy pamphlet, short on details, and long on campaign-style talking points.'' There wasn't any substance there. There were no hard numbers talking about what they would do to reduce the deficits and what the deficit would be, what programs they were going to cut. Very, very disappointing to see a pamphlet that basically recycled the policies of the last 8 years of the Bush administration and Republican leadership that drove us into the economic ditch. They proposed their same old tax cuts for people who need them least, and offered an alternative that would provide 25 percent less in tax reduction for lower income Americans than is proposed by President Obama and would run up the deficit even higher than it already is. We are going to have a week that is dominated by budget discussion. We Democrats are going to bring our budget to the floor on Thursday that builds on the President's challenge: Health care for all Americans; education reform, investing in the needs of education for our children and for people that have lost their jobs or need to change their career track; investing in reducing carbon pollution, climate change, and energy independence to create green-collar jobs that will be sustainable and provide value to the economy while we protect the planet. Our budget is serious about deficit reduction, after President Obama inherited from the Bush administration the largest deficit in United States history. It is ironic, because when the Bush administration took office, they were facing a projected $5.2 trillion budget surplus, and Republicans had control of all of the levers of power here in Washington, D.C. Their control created economic problems, the budget deficit exploded, and taxes were cut for people who needed it the very least. Ours is, I must emphasize, a budget outline that will enable Congress, at least those who want to be legislators and not merely talk about it, to roll up their sleeves and deliver on the challenges that the President made in health care, education, climate, deficit reduction, and tax reform. There are no specific policy decisions made in the budget outline. That is not what a budget is for. Rather, it is to provide the framework. Budget decisions will be made by the people here who decide to be legislators over the next 6 months. There is still time for people on the other side of the aisle to reject their leadership, roll up their sleeves, and work with us to deal with specifics on carbon pollution, on health care, on education. It was a little disorienting to hear at the Budget Committee late into the night last Wednesday Republicans talking about objecting to the President's proposal to reform student loans because they were afraid it would cost some bankers some jobs. I did the math. According to their figures, those jobs were at the expense of $133,000 each, money that the Democrats and the President think ought to be loaned to students, not to subsidize bankers. We look forward to a spirited debate this week.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to vote ``yes'' on the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This bill will designate more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states, including 127,000 acres on Mt. Hood and in the Columbia River Gorge. It also includes wilderness protection for other Oregon treasures in the Cascade Siskiyou, Oregon Badlands, Spring Basin, and Copper Salmon areas. It is worth noting that in addition to wilderness on Mt. Hood, the legislation contains nearly 80 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers, including stretches of Fish Creek, which contains crucial habitat for endangered fish, the East Fork of the Hood River, where wildlife habitat and low impact recreation opportunities abound, and Fifteen Mile Creek, another critical area for fish and wildlife, recreation, and scenic beauty. The bill designates 34,000 acres of new National Recreation Areas in the Mt. Hood National Forest and creates a long term transportation plan to address the challenges of getting to and from the mountain. It also directs the Forest Service to participate in three land conveyances. These exchanges will provide additional protection for the North side of Mt. Hood, the Pacific Crest Trail, and a parcel of land that is critical to the community in Clackamas County. In 2003, I worked with other members of the Oregon delegation to hold a Mt. Hood Summit at Timberline Lodge, inviting local stakeholders to share their vision for the challenges and opportunities facing the Mt. Hood National Forest. Over the past six years a committed group of citizens, organizations, Native Americans, local, state and federal jurisdictions, and private interests have spent countless hours negotiating a long term stewardship and protection plan for Mt. Hood's forests and rivers. Oregonians have worked tirelessly and waited years to have these treasured natural areas protected. I am extremely pleased that the hard work of so many committed local stakeholders is coming to fruition, and I hope that we pass this bill today and send it swiftly to President Obama for his signature.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as we approach health care reform, there is no area that is more vital for honest discussion and careful analysis than what happens at end of a patient's life. For most of us, we will get the majority of our lifetime health care in that last year. Indeed, for many it is just the last few months of life, we use the most doctor care, the most intervention in terms of medical procedures, the most days in a hospital. This is clearly the time of greatest stress both for the patient and the family as they watch their loved one enter what is often a struggle in these last few months. The evidence is that this is the hardest period to be able to make those critical decisions. We don't want to force spur-of-the-moment action for families when they are talking about things that have great consequence for the quality of life for not just a ``patient'' but a family member, the ability to extend the quality of life, and perhaps deal with recovery. This is also the worst time for people to go on autopilot check out, to have a default option where they just turn decisions over to whatever the local medical activity may be on that site without a thought and consequence to what the individual wishes of the patient and their family may be. There is strong evidence that in many cases the very intensive activities--the tubes, the procedures, the operations, the ventilators--actually don't prolong life, and they certainly impact in a negative sense the quality of life, the way that the patient may be able to interact with their family and friends in those last few days and their mind-set and their pain level. This research has sparked action from coast to coast. Many States have developed a new end-of-life care directive called Orders For Life Sustaining Treatment. They are being developed in over 30 States. They help the seriously ill patient identify their treatment preferences using clear, standardized language. It is written as actionable medical orders signed by a physician, and they help communicate patient preferences regarding the intensity of medical intervention, transfers to hospitals, use of antibiotics, artificially administered nutrition and resuscitation. Members of my family and I have concluded that we don't want those extraordinary measures as our default, and have signed instructions accordingly. What we find, however, is that too many people don't have access to the counseling and activities for them to be able to make an informed decision. The irony is that the Medicare system will spend thousands and thousands of dollars on intense medical intervention, intense medical activities, but they won't spend a few dollars to pay a doctor to have a conversation with a patient and the family about what they can expect, what their choices are, and to be able to engage with the patient and the family to decide what they want to have happen. I guess that we don't do it to save money; but the evidence suggests that when people actually have a choice, they choose things that not only improve their quality of life, but actually save money. Why don't we give individual patients and their families that choice under Medicare? That's why I will be introducing the Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act which will provide coverage under Medicare for consultations regarding end-of-life treatment options. It is time for Medicare to be able to address the needs that will truly reflect the preferences, the wishes, and the quality-of-life choices for Medicare patients and their families. It is the humane, compassionate thing to do. It will help us allocate our health care resources more appropriately to treat what people want, and it will relieve the pressure on the health care system so the default isn't always the most intensive, expensive interventions that often deteriorate the quality of life in those final days. I would urge my colleagues to look at this option and join me in making sure that we modernize Medicare to meet the needs of patients and their families in their final hours.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule and support for the underlying bill. This morning marks hopefully the culmination of 7 years of work that I have been involved with in the State of Oregon to preserve one of our special places, the Mount Hood wilderness. It has been a bipartisan effort. Indeed, I hiked around Mount Hood with my good friend and colleague, Greg Walden, 5 years ago now, with our staff. We have had countless meetings with stakeholders, with Native Americans, with cyclists, with all of the special interests that care about this icon of Oregon, Mount Hood. And it took us a lot of hard work to reach the sweet spot where we had bipartisan support. We actually got it through the House once, and it stumbled in the Senate. Madam Speaker, it is too important for us to start down this trail of starting to tweak the legislation now, because I have watched the Mount Hood wilderness be tied up in Senate politics and procedural activities for a half-dozen years now. I strongly urge that we support this underlying bill and be able to bring in millions of acres of America's special places to give them wilderness designation. I want to thank my friend, Greg Walden; the dean of our delegation, Peter DeFazio; and in the other body, Senator Wyden; former Republican Senator Smith; and new Senator Merkley. All of us have joined together on this landmark legislation for Mount Hood. I see my good friend and colleague Congressman Minnick from Idaho here. This is a journey in Idaho that Representative Simpson has been working on for years as well. Members should come together and pass this legislation. The rule does matter. We have watched one single Member of the other body tie up critical wilderness legislation for years. We have got it through the Senate, finally. We have broad bipartisan support for special places all across America. I strongly urge that we resist the temptation to tinker with this bill now. I would like to think that my colleague on the other side of the aisle is offering this from the purest of motives, but the fact is that we have watched delay and amendment foul up the wilderness legislation procedurally for a half- dozen years. By approving this rule, approving this legislation, we can move forward with these protections for special places all across America. And then we can go back and deal with any unresolved issues. Heaven knows, I want to make sure that we take care of issues that relate to cyclists, for instance. Vote for the rule, vote for the bill, and get on with business.